The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Digital Orthopantomography vs Cone Beam Computed Tomography—Part 2: A CBCT Analysis of Factors Influencing the Prevalence of Periapical Lesions

Elisa Bonfanti, Claudio Luigi Citterio, Marco Baldoni

Keywords : Apical lesion, CBCT, Cohort study, Digital orthopantomography, Radiographic assessment

Citation Information : Bonfanti E, Citterio CL, Baldoni M. Digital Orthopantomography vs Cone Beam Computed Tomography—Part 2: A CBCT Analysis of Factors Influencing the Prevalence of Periapical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (6):664-669.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2576

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is the most refined and affordable method available today for the examination of an incoming patient for different dental pathologies. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the significance of some factors influencing the prevalence of apical periodontitis. Materials and methods: An ortopantomography (OPT) and CBCT scan of the dental arches were examined for each of the selected 45 patients. The presence of apical periodontitis (AP) was compared for CBCT and OPT examination. Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and accuracy were calculated for CBCT, using OPT as a reference. The impact of protective/risk factors on the development of AP was examined. Results: CBCT showed higher sensitivity (250%), predictive values (111%), accuracy (111%), and specificity (101%) than OPT. It was found to have higher sensitivity in all the dentition areas, especially where empty anatomical spaces or more radiotransparent structures have a strict relationship with the tooth apex and periapical structures like upper front area, premolar areas, and, especially, in the upper molar area. The prevalence of AP increased from 16 to 17% in the case of insufficient conservative restoration or 25% in the case of microleakage, 35–42% in the case of prosthetic restoration, 56–67% for posts, and 60 and 85%, respectively, for inadequate endodontic treatment and missed canals. Conclusion: CBCT plays a decisive role in the evaluation of molar areas and in the endodontic treatment planning, when a close relationship between the apex and important anatomical structures exists. Different risk factors with different relevance are identified. Clinical significance: As CBCT-examined results show, coronal restorations are moderate-risk factors, while insufficient endodontic treatments and posts are high-risk factors for the development of AP.

PDF Share
  1. Patel S, Durack C, et al. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics – a review. Int Endod J 2015;48(1):3–15. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12270.
  2. Citterio F, Pellegatta A, et al. Analysis of the apical constriction using micro-computed tomography and anatomical sections. In: Giornale Italiano Di Endodonzia, 2014; pp. 41–45, vol. 28. DOI: 10.1016/j. gien.2014.05.001.
  3. Venino PM, Citterio CL, et al. A micro-computed tomography evaluation of the shaping ability of two nickel–titanium instruments, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper next. J Endod 2017;43(4):628–632. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.022.
  4. Maddalone M, Ferrari M, et al. Use of miniscrew implants in orthodontic distal movement [Utilizzo delle miniviti nelle meccaniche ortodontiche di distalizzazione]. Dent Cadmos 2010;78(8):97–105.
  5. Maddalone M, Ferrari M, et al. Intrusive mechanics in orthodontics with the use of TAD's [Utilizzo delle miniviti nelle meccaniche ortodontiche di intrusione]. Dent Cadmos 2010;78(7):97–106.
  6. Maddalone M. The association between the psychological status and the severity of facial deformity in orthognathic patients. Angle Orthod 2012;82(3):396–402. DOI: 10.2319/060211-363.
  7. Patel S, Wilson R, et al. The detection of periapical pathosis using digital periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography – part 2: a 1 year post-treatment follow-up. Int Endod J 2012;45(8): 711–723. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02076.x.
  8. Lofthag-Hansen S, Huumonen S, et al. Limited cone-beam CT and intraoral radiography for the diagnosis of periapical pathology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007;103(1):114–119. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.01.001.
  9. Estrela C, Bueno MR, et al. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography and panoramic and periapical radiography for detection of apical periodontitis. J Endod 2008;34(3):273–279. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2007.11.023.
  10. Low KMT, Dula K, et al. Comparison of periapical radiography and limited cone-beam tomography in posterior maxillary teeth referred for apical surgery. J Endod 2008;34(5):557–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.02.022.
  11. Friedman S. Prognosis of initial endodontic therapy. Endod Top 2002;2(1):59–88. DOI: 10.1034/j.1601-1546.2002.20105.x.
  12. Davies A, Mannocci F, et al. The detection of periapical pathoses in root filled teeth using single and parallax periapical radiographs versus cone beam computed tomography – a clinical study. Int Endod J 2015;48(6):582–592. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12352.
  13. Theodorakou C, Walker A, et al. Estimation of paediatric organ and effective doses from dental cone beam CT using anthropomorphic phantoms. Br J Radiol 2012;85(1010):153–160. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/19389412.
  14. Danin J, Strömberg T, et al. Clinical management of nonhealing periradicular pathosis. Surgery versus endodontic retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1996;82(2):213–217. DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(96)80259-9.
  15. Gorni FGM, Gagliani MM. The outcome of endodontic retreatment: a 2 year follow-up. J Endod 2004;30(1):1–4. DOI: 10.1097/00004770- 200401000-00001.
  16. de Chevigny C, Dao TT, et al. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study-phase 4: initial treatment. J Endod 2008;34(3):258–263. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.017.
  17. Sundqvist G, Figdor D, et al. Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85(1):86–93. DOI: 10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90404-8.
  18. Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, et al. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto study. Phases I and II: orthograde retreatment. J Endod 2004;30(9):627–633. DOI: 10.1097/01.DON.0000129958.12388.82.
  19. Patel S, Dawood A, et al. Detection of periapical bone defects in human jaws using cone beam computed tomography and intraoral radiography. Int Endod J 2009;42(6):507–515. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2591.2008.01538.x.
  20. Huumonen S, Orstavik D. Radiological aspects of apical periodontitis. Endod Top 2002;1:3–25. DOI: 10.1034/j.1601-1546.2002.10102.x.
  21. Pauwels R, Beinsberger J, et al. Effective dose range for dental cone beam computed tomography scanners. Eur J Radiol 2012;81(2): 267–271. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.11.028.
  22. Ivanoviæ M, Jovièiæ O, et al. Oral manifestations of acute leukaemia. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2011;139(1–2):103–106.
  23. Cakici E, Yildirim E, et al. Assessment of periapical health, quality of root canal filling, and coronal restoration by using cone-beam computed tomography. Niger J Clin Pract 2016;19(5):673. DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.188697.
  24. Liang YH, Li G, et al. The association between complete absence of post-treatment periapical lesion and quality of root canal filling. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16(6):1619–1626. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0671-3.
  25. Ng YL, Mann V, et al. Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature – part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J 2008;41(1):6–31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x.
  26. Karabucak B, Bunes A, et al. Prevalence of apical periodontitis in endodontically treated premolars and molars with untreated canal: a cone-beam computed tomography study. J Endod 2016;42(4): 538–541. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.12.026.
  27. Del Fabbro M. Le infezioni endodontiche. G Ital Endod 2009;23(1): 34–37.
  28. Gambarini G, Piasecki L, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography in the assessment of periapical lesions in endodontically treated teeth. Eur J Dent 2018;12(1):136–143. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_320_17.
  29. Sorrentino R, Di Mauro MI, et al. Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses—a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20(7):1449–1457. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1919-8.
  30. Signore A, Benedicenti S, et al. Long-term survival of endodontically treated, maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or parallel-sided glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown coverage. J Dent 2009;37(2):115–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.10.007.
  31. Farah RI, Aldakhili AS, et al. A radiographic study of the association between apical periodontitis and technical quality of intraradicular posts and root canal fillings: a cross-sectional study in Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(4):538–544. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd.
  32. Maddalone M, Gagliani M, et al. Prevalence of vertical root fractures in teeth planned for apical surgery. A retrospective cohort study. Int Endod J 2018;51(9):969–974. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12910.
  33. Ivanoviæ M, Jovièiæ O, et al. Prevention of oral diseases in children with acute leukaemia. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2011;139(3–4):242–247.
  34. Ricucci D, Gröndahl K, et al. Periapical status of root-filled teeth exposed to the oral environment by loss of restoration or caries. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90(3):354–359. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2000.108802.
  35. Dawson VS, Petersson K, et al. Periapical status of root-filled teeth restored with composite, amalgam, or full crown restorations: a cross-sectional study of a Swedish adult population. J Endod 2016;42(9):1326–1333. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.06.008.
  36. Gaalaas L, Tyndall D, et al. Ex vivo evaluation of new 2D and 3D dental radiographic technology for detecting caries. Dentomaxillofacial Radiol 2016;45(3):1–10. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr.20150281.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.